Madras High Court
R.Tirupathy vs The District Collector on 24 March, 2006
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.966 of 2005 W.P.Nos.967 to 969,876 to 879 of 2005 and W.P.No.643 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.Nos.906 to 909 and 830 to 833 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.NoS.254 to 259 and 709 & 710 of 2006 R.Tirupathy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.966 of 2005 D.Uthirasigamani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.967 of 2005 K.Nirmala .. Petitioner in W.P.No.968 of 2005 R.Duraipandiyan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.969 of 2005 M.Asankani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.876 of 2005 P.Kumaravel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.877 of 2005 M.Nehru .. Petitioner in W.P.No.878 of 2005 P.Muthiah .. Petitioner in W.P.No.879 of 2005 T.Chidambaram .. Petitioner in W.P.No.643 of 2006 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai - 2. ... 1st Respondents in all the writ petitions 2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Sokkikulam, Madurai-2. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.966 to 969 2005 3.The Executive Officer/President, Illamanur Village Panchayat, Illamanur Village, Madurai - 625 107. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.966 of 2005 4.The Executive Officer/President, Thirumoogur Village Panchayat, Thirumoogur Village, Madurai - 625 107. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.967 of 2005 5.The Executive Officer/President, Arumbanur Village Panchayat, Arumbanur Village, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.968 of 2005 6.The Executive Officer/President, Melamadai Village Panchayat, Melamadi Village, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.969 of 2005 7.The Block Development Officer (Panchayats) Tirupanrankundram Panchayat Union, Tiruparankundram. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.876 to879 of 2005 and W.P.No.643 of 2006 8.The Executive Officer / President, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village Panchayat, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village, Madurai - 625 019. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.876 of 2005 9.The Executive Officer/President, Kodimangalam Village Panchayat, Kodimangalam Village, Melakkal Road, Madurai. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.877 of 2005 10.The Executive Officer/President Karadipatti Village Panchayat, Karadipatti Village, Nagamalai Pudhukottai, Madurai 21. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.878 of 2005 11.The Executive Officer, Vadapalanji Village Panchayat, Vadapalanji Village, Madurai- 625 021. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.879 of 2005 12.The Executive Officer/President, Nilaiyoor 1st Bit Village Panchayat, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.643 of 2006 PRAYER in 966 to 979 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his proceedings bearing file No.1/2004-2005 dated 09.02.2005, 08.02.2005 and quash the same. PRAYER in 876 to 879 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his proceedings bearing file No.1/2004-2005 dated 01.02.2005 and quash the same. PRAYER in 643 of 2006: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge memo dated 03.02.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant. !For Petitioners ... Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel ^For Respondents ... Mrs.Ambujam Selvarani, Special Government Pleader. :COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. In all these writ petitions common issues are involved therefore, they are taken together for common order.
3. In W.P.Nos.966 to 969 of 2005, the petitioners are the Village Panchayat Assistants working in Ilamanur Village Panchayat, Thirumogur Village Panchayat, Arumbanur Village Panchayat, Melamadai Village Panchayat respectively, under the control of Madurai East Panchayat Union.
4. In W.P.Nos.876 to 879 of 2005, the petitioners are the Village Panchayat Assistants in Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village Panchayat, Kodimangalam Village Panchayat, Karadipatti Village Panchayat, Vadapalanji Village Panchayat respectively, under the control of Thiruparankundram Panchayat Union.
5. In W.P.No.643 of 2006, the petitioner is the Village Panchayat Assistant in Nilaiyoor 1st Bit Village Panchayat under the control of Thiruparankundram Panchayat Union.
6. In all these cases, the first respondent being the Collector is Inspector of Panchayats as per the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. In these cases, the petitioners who have worked as Village Panchayat Assistants were issued with impugned charge memo in respect of the alleged wrong doings while purchasing uniform from the funds of various panchayat unions in the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 and distributing the same and directing the petitioners therein to submit their explanations as to why they should not be removed from service.
7. According to the petitioners, the Village Panchayat Assistant post is a civil post under the State of Tamil Nadu. In respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.966 to 969 of 2005 by a memo dated 02.02.2005 by the first respondent to the second respondent directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to issue charge memo to the petitioners and giving reasonable opportunity to defend their case before they are terminated from service and inform the same after termination.
8. In respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.876 to 879 of 2005, the third respondent has issued charge memo dated 01.02.2005 directing as to why the petitioners should not dismissed from service for having abetted the Block Development Officer, Special Officer, and Extension Officer in causing monetary loss in respect of the above said purchase.
9. Likewise, in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.643 of 2006 a similar charge memo dated 03.02.2005 came to be issued by the third respondent. Again in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.966 to 969 of 2005, the third respondent has issued the impugned charge memo dated 09.02.2005 against the petitioners why they should not be removed from service. The said charge memo issued by the third respondent as per the direction of the second respondent, who acted as per the directions of the first respondent as stated above.
10. The petitioners would state that in respect of these purchases effected in the year 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 of Dhoties, Sarees, Shirting, Cloth, Bed etc., for distribution to the Village Panchayat Assistants, the respondents took cognisance of the issue even in the year 1996 and initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Block Development Officer, Extension Officer and therefore, they were aware of the incidents and inspite of it the impugned charge memos are issued to the petitioners after a lapse of nearly 10 years after the incident. Even, the first and second respondents were aware of these incidents in the year 1995 and inspite of the same, all on a sudden in January 2005 they have issued a direction to the third respondent to issue charge memo. The charge memo has been challenged on various grounds by the petitioners including the ground that there is an inordinate delay in framing the charges and also the charges are framed with closed mind with a pre- determined idea of punishing the petitioners some how or the other. The petitioners would state that apart from the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings which vitiate the charge memo, even before the charge memo could be issued to the petitioners the respondents 1 and 2 have given direction to the third respondent to dismiss the petitioners from service after giving reasonable opportunity and intimate the dismissal to them.
11. That apart, it is the case of the petitioners that the charge memo look like a second show cause notice seeking to terminate the service of the petitioners without even giving sufficient opportunity of not being heard. Apart from that the petitioners also assail the impugned charge memo on the ground of vagueness since the charges are not specific.
12. The second and third respondents filed their counter affidavit which has been adopted by the first respondent also.
13. According to the respondents, the petitioners are only temporary employees and they were not assigned with any permanent status and they have no right of protection of the permanent employees. According to the respondents, the 10 years delay is sought to be explained as a procedural delay since the respondent is a Government Organisation. Till date the petitioners are only temporary workers on a consolidated pay. According to the respondents, the petitioners have colluded with the Block Development officers causing loss of the Government money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in the guise of purchasing uniforms to the Panchayat Board workers and therefore, the impugned charge memo issued to the petitioners. The third respondent being the superior authority to the petitioners has issued the charge memo. Since the first and second respondents are the superiors to the third respondent, the third respondent has to act as per the direction.
14. The respondents would also state that "it is needless for the respondents to state before this Court that law will take its own course and is not barred by limitation." The petitioners having committed unbearable crime of abetting with others in swallowing of State money and cannot get protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In respect of the decision taken to remove even before explanation called for, the respondents would state that the gravity of the crime required extreme punishment and it is because the law requires that the guilty should be heard, hence, the charge memo was issued.
15. On the other hand, the third respondent would submit that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department has conducted a detailed enquiry and the same has been sent to the Government and it was as per the letter of the Government dated 21.07.2004 directions were given to the District Collector, Madurai to terminate the services of the petitioners for the fraudulent transactions.
16. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent that since the Panchayat Assistants like the petitioners are not covered under any service rules departmental disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated and hence the President of the Panchayat Union who is the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat was directed to call for explanation before terminating their service. The third respondent would submit that even though the period of occurrence was in 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, the disciplinary action could be initiated for any lapses during the service period of the petitioners.
17. The third respondent also state that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 read with the Government letter dated 20.11.2001 it empowers the Executive Authority to dismiss or remove delinquent officials recording the reasons for such removal and dismissal and giving reasonable opportunity to defend their case. It is also stated "he can dismiss or remove the Panchayat Assistant if he is satisfied that the act of the delinquent official which lead to initiation of charges warrant such a penalty".
18. Mr.Viduthalai, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in all these cases would submit that the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings would make the impugned charge memo unlawful, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the hierarchy of judgments. The learned Senior counsel in this regard relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 to show that when the Department was aware of the involvement in the alleged irregularities and no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuing charge memo was given by the Department, the disciplinary proceedings initiated after more than 12 years was held to be bad in law and hence it was set aside.
19. He has also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 wherein the Apex Court has held that the charge memo issued in the year 2000 in respect of an act alleged to have been committed in 1990 was to be quashed not accepting the plea of the Housing Board that the lapse came to lime light in the Auditors Report in the year 1994-1995. He has also relied upon a few judgments of this Court including the judgment reported in 2003 (3) CTC 351, 2005 (5) CTC 380, to show that the unexplained extraordinary delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings will vitiate the charge memo.
20. In respect of the next contention that the respondents had closed mind and have pre-determined to punish the petitioners even before the impugned charge memo could be issued, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the communication of the first respondent directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to dismiss the petitioners after holding enquiry and giving opportunity to defend their case and intimate the same is itself a sufficient proof to show that the respondents have pre-determined to punish the petitioners. He would also submit that this has been, ineffect admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
21. According to the learned Senior counsel, the higher officials like Block Development Officer, Extension Officers have been ultimately exonerated and infact some of their services have been regularised while the petitioners who are the last grade servants of the Panchayat Union are targeted which, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is a gross discrimination. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel, the charge memos on the face of them suffered from patent illegality and liable to be set aside.
22. Per contra, Mrs.Ambujam Selvarani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that even though the occurrence took place between 1994-1995, 1995-1996, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Director of Rural Development who has submitted his report in 1996 and it was based on the same action was initiated. Therefore according to her, there is no delay.
23. When it was found from the appropriate investigating authority, the Government has concluded that some of them are not involved in the allegations like Thiru.G.Ramamurthy, formerly, Extension Officer, Thiru.T.Ramakrishnan and Thiru.Govindarajan, Block Development Officer and another and therefore actions were dropped against them. In respect of some other officials like T.S.Shanmuga Velayutham (A.O.6), Thiru.P.Pandian (A.O.8), Thiru A.Alagarsamy (A.O.20), Thiru.Mohamed Ibrahimsha, (A.O.21), Thiru.S.Durairaj (A.O.22), Thiru.N.Ramasamy (A.O.23), the further action were dropped since they have already retired from services on 30.08.2001 30.11.1999, 31.3.1999, 30.11.1998, 31.3.1996 and 30.06.1997 respectively as per the G.O.(D) No.487 dated 19.9.2002. In respect of some of the officials like Mr. M.Muthaiah, formerly, Block Development Officer, Thiru.I.M.Devaraj, formerly Panchayat Assistant later Village Administrative Officer suspension order passed and enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry officer and the same has been submitted to the Government on 19.04.2005 and awaiting the orders from the Government since they are governed by the Government rules.
24. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the delay is explained and is due to the administrative reasons only. While meeting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that some officials were let out and the lesser mortals like the petitioners are taken to task, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as per the Government orders it was concluded that some were not involved in the charges. In respect of Thiru.T.Ramakrishnan formerly Extension Officer, actions were dropped due to the fact that he has filed a contempt petition based on the order of the State Administrative Tribunal which has allowed him to retire. It was on that basis he was allowed to retire on 29.09.2003 by dropping the charges. Likewise in respect of one Thiru.G.Ramamurthi, formerly Extension Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, in his case also the impugned charge memo was revoked on the basis that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has quashed the suspension order. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader there is no discrimination and those persons allowed to retire only after the Government has come to the conclusion that either they were not involved or orders issued based on the Court orders.
25. Mr.Viduthalai, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners by way of his reply would submit that when admittedly the respondents have initiated action against the officials in 1996 itself, it means that they were aware of the incidents and on that basis itself, the impugned charge memo issued in the year 2005 after a lapse of nearly 9 years has to be quashed. The respondents have not chosen to explain the delay at all. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners when the higher officials with whom the petitioners were alleged to have abetted the offence when exonerated, the petitioners also should have been exonerated in all fairness.
26. The very fact that the first respondent the District Collector was informed by the Secretary to the Government by the letter dated 21.07.2004 a copy of which has been filed by the respondents themselves, directing that the investigating authority of the Government has held that the charges against the petitioners have been substantiated against and therefore, directed the petitioners who were working on consolidated pay during 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 may be terminated and also directing the first respondent to terminate the services of the Panchayat Assistants, would show that the extraneous reasons have played vitally in framing the impugned charge memos, according to the learned Senior counsel.
27. This according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is a patent abuse of process causing prejudice to the petitioners since the charge memo issued is only an empty formality. While writing such letters the Government has given a clear go bye to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The learned Senior counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagii Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and another reported in 1991 (3) SCC 219 to show that the respondents being authorities have not decided anything independently and extraneous considerations have played a vital role and therefore the charges are vitiated.
28. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as also the Special Government Pleader and perused the entire documents filed on both sides by way of typed set of papers.
29. The two substantial issues that arise for consideration in all these cases as stated above are (i) that there is an inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and (ii)that the respondents under the impugned order have pre-determined the punishment and therefore it vitiates the entire charge memos.
30. As far as the first contention of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, it is admitted even in the counter affidavit that the respondents were aware of the mal-practices in respect of the purchase of uniforms even in 1995. The very document filed on behalf of the respondents especially the communication of the Secretary to Government Rural Development, Chennai dated 08.11.1996 under which it is specifically stated that those officers therein numbering 13 have made purchases of silk sarees and dhoties from Khadi Department in the guise of purchase of uniforms for the menials and scavengers of the Panchayats in Panchayat Union Funds during 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 with connivance of Khadi Board employees and the irregularities have been brought to the notice of Government by the Director of Rural Development, proves the same abundantly.
31. It is also admitted that on the basis of such information actions sought to be taken against the officials. Whileso, it is the duty of the respondents to explain as to why the impugned charge memos are issued against the petitioners who are the Village Panchayat Assistants in the year 2005 after the delay of nearly 9 years. It is curious to note that the respondents in the counter have even chosen to state that in respect of the public servants like the petitioners any action can be taken during their service time. Eventhough, the learned Special Government Pleader has admitted the delay but explained saying that it was due to investigation and administrative reasons. The fact remains that there is no explanation for the period from 1996 to 2005 for taking disciplinary action against the petitioners after a lapse of 9 years.
32. As correctly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 has quashed the charge memo on the basis that the delay has not been properly explained. The Supreme Court in that case has held that:
"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry."
In the present case also as I have state above, there is an inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and the delay has not been properly explained.
34. Now coming to the second aspect of the case namely as to whether the charge memo suffers from being initiated with pre-determined mind. In this regard, it is relevant to point out as admitted by the second respondent in the counter that the first respondent has written a letter to the second respondent namely, the Block Development Officer to inform the third respondent by the letter dated 01.02.2005 stating that the investigation against the petitioners have been proved and therefore, they should be removed from service by affording reasonable opportunity to defend their case.
35. Very surprisingly, the said letter also states that the first respondent should be intimated after the petitioners are removed from service. It is relevant to point out that the first respondent being the Inspector of Panchayats under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 controls the second and third respondents out of whom, the third respondent being the Panchayat President is the Executive Authority to take action against the persons like the petitioners. Therefore, on the face of it, it is clear that the third respondent has not initiated action under the impugned charge memos and taken any decision independently under the Panchayat Act. Even a perusal of the impugned charge memos would show that the third respondent has already decided that the petitioners have committed the misconduct and also caused loss to the panchayat funds and therefore, straight away issued the impugned charge memo saying as to why the petitioners should not be removed from service.
36. Therefore, a combined reading of the communication of the first respondent to the second respondent and consequently, the impugned order passed by the third respondent based on the communication of the second respondent shows that the impugned charge memos have been framed not with an independent mind but with a pre-determined view. It is like a second show cause notice given normally for government servants after conducting enquiry and finding the delinquent liable to be punished. In this case, without any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners the impugned charge memos are issued which are really in the form of a second show cause notice as to why the petitioners should not be removed from service. No provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats Act, even applied and not given a bare minimum opportunity required before issuing such show cause notice.
37. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioners are temporary servants and therefore, they need not be given any opportunity and the impugned charge memo itself would amount to opportunity. This is not only unsustainable but also totally opposed to the basic principles of natural justice. Even a temporary employee is entitled for a fair hearing and fair enquiry with an impartial mind. In the present case, the perusal of the charge memo as I stated above show that the respondents have already decided to terminate the services of the petitioners based on the communication from the first and second respondents and therefore, in my considered view and as correctly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the charge memos are only empty formality and cannot be stated to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
38. There is yet another reason in the circumstance of this case, that even as admitted by the respondents some of the officials who were controlling the petitioners and who were stated to have been committed the real misappropriation have been exonerated. The reason adduced by the respondents that many of them were exonerated because they have attained superannuation or were found to be not involved cannot be a ground for the purpose of implicating the petitioners.
39. On the other hand, when once it is admitted that the superior authorities who are stated to have committed the real act of misappropriation have been exonerated, the last grade servants like the petitioners who are stated to have abetted the said officials ought to have been given up from the disciplinary proceedings which is the requirement of fair play and justice. When the third respondent is guided by the provision of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994, it is not known as to how the provisions of the said Act have not been followed for the purpose of taking action against the Panchayat servants. The powers of the Executive Authority under the Panchayats Act especially Section 83 are not followed.
40. In the present case, when admittedly, the Government has directed through the first respondent the Collector who is the Inspector of the Panchayats based on which the third respondent issued the impugned charge memos, it can never be said that the decision of the third respondent by issuing the impugned charge memos are impartial.
41. In the present case also it is admitted by the respondents that it is based on the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department investigation the entire charges have been levelled. That alone cannot be a ground for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings is the law laid down by the Apex Court in judgment in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagii Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and another reported in 1991 (3) SCC 219. The relevant portions of the judgment are as follows:
"We are not even remotely impressed by the arguments of counsel for the Bank. Firstly, the Bank itself seems to have felt as alleged by the petitioner and not denied by the Bank in its counter that the compulsory retirement recommended by the Central Vigilance Commission was too harsh and excessive on the petitioner in view of his excellent performance and unblemished antecedent service. The Bank appears to have made two representations; one in 1986 and another in 1987 to the Central Vigilance Commission for taking a lenient view of the matter and to advice lesser punishment to the petitioner. Apparently, those representations were not accepted by the Commission. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore have no choice in the matter. They had to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement as advised by the Central Vigilance Commission. The advice was binding on the authorities in view of the said directive of the Ministry of Finance, followed by two circulars issued by the successive Chief Executives of the Bank. The disciplinary and appellate authorities might not have referred to the directive of the Ministry of Finance or the Bank circulars. They might not have stated in their orders that they were bound by the punishment proposed by the Central Vigilance Commission. But it is reasonably foreseeable and needs no elaboration that they could not have ignored the advice of the Commission. They could not have imposed a lesser punishment without the concurrence of the Commission. Indeed, they could have ignored the advice of the Commission and imposed a lesser punishment only at their peril."
42. In view of the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memos are liable to be quashed both on the grounds of inordinate delay and one passed with the closed mind and for extraneous reasons. In view of the same, the impugned charge memos are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.
sms To
1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai - 2.
2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Sokkikulam, Madurai-2.
3.The Executive Officer/President, Illamanur Village Panchayat, Illamanur Village, Madurai - 625 107.
4.The Executive Officer/President, Thirumoogur Village Panchayat, Thirumoogur Village, Madurai - 625 107.
5.The Executive Officer/President, Arumbanur Village Panchayat, Arumbanur Village, Madurai District.
6.The Executive Officer/President, Melamadai Village Panchayat, Melamadi Village, Madurai District.
7.The Block Development Officer (Panchayats) Tirupanrankundram Panchayat Union, Tiruparankundram.
8.The Executive Officer / President, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village Panchayat, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village, Madurai - 625 019.
9.The Executive Officer/President, Kodimangalam Village Panchayat, Kodimangalam Village, Melakkal Road, Madurai.
10.The Executive Officer/President Karadipatti Village Panchayat, Karadipatti Village, Nagamalai Pudhukottai, Madurai 21.
11.The Executive Officer, Vadapalanji Village Panchayat, Vadapalanji Village, Madurai- 625 021.
12.The Executive Officer/President, Nilaiyoor 1st Bit Village Panchayat, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District.